"Independence Day: Resurgence" Review

What is the acceptable time gap between movies in a franchise? Nowadays, pretty much every movie is going to have a sequel churned out, normally within 2 to 3 years, so that it isn't too rushed, but isn't too late that audiences have forgotten about the first movie and still care about the franchise. The only time that the gap tends to be smaller and results aren't terrible is when the movies are filmed back-to-back as part of a trilogy or a similar set of movies. Anything released later tends to receive criticism for having come too late, although it many not necessarily be bad. With that said, here we are with a sequel to the iconic "Independence Day," 20 years after the release of the original. Clearly 20th Century Fox thought that they could pull off this revival of the franchise based entirely on love and nostalgia for the original movie. However, while I enjoy Independence Day and all of it's fun, over-the-top 90s action, that is not going to stop me pointing out all of the problems with "Independence Day: Resurgence" and how it is undoubtedly one of the most disappointing movies of the year so far.


The plot of this movie takes place 20 years after the events of the original movie, with Earth having advanced all of our technology through the use of the alien weaponry and ships used in their attempted invasion of the planet. However, now they're back and ready to continue what they (apparently) started. Look, I understand that it's incredibly difficult, if even possible anymore, to come up with a completely original plot for a movie nowadays. However, that does not mean I am going to forgive filmmakers for pretty much making the exact same movie as the first one. Besides a couple of additions regarding the actual goals of the aliens and some laughable attempts to expand this universe, there is very little innovation to be found here. No spoilers here obviously, but characters even begin to talk about how their plan and how the movie will inevitably end is exactly the same as the first movie in the second act.

The writing in the movie is unbearably bad as well. I know it's a big, dumb sci-fi movie and the suspension of disbelief is required but this can only go so far. The movie consistently breaks it's own logic and makes absolutely no sense. Not only that, but the character dynamics in the movie are not very believable or realistic, particularly the relationship between Liam Hemsworth's Jake and Jessie Usher's Dylan. The movie attempts to build tension between the two throughout the movie due to a past accident. However, this is a cringeworthy subplot in the movie which makes no sense considering the apparently once close friendship between the two. Throughout the movie, I found it unbelievable that once of the characters would not simply just apologise and, if he did, the other was being pretty petty and unreasonable. However, of all the writing, the worst comes towards the close of the movie, where another movie is set up in a shameful and embarrassing manner. The movie is more concerned with setting up the rest of this cinematic universe for the future and the next movies for this series. It's a shame that after seeing this one, I don't want to see them.

I just briefly mentioned the characters in the movie, and they are a mixed bag. many characters return from the original movie, and they are the best characters here. Jeff Goldblum is doing his best as David Levinson, reprising his role from the original movie, and is one of the few characters to actually inject some personality into his character. It's true that Goldblum has become a bit of a running joke on the Internet in the past few years, with many poking fun at his "ums" and "ooms" in the middle of lines. However, that is exactly what gives the character his likeable and more believable personality. Bill Pullman also does a good job as former President Thomas Whitmore. Although he unfortunately doesn't get to deliver his rousing speech from the original movie, Pullman delivers an emotional and hard-hitting performance as the character is now facing PTSD due to his past experiences. However, besides these two, the returning characters are simply annoying, particularly Brent Spiner's Dr. Brakish Okun. The character is devised to be the comic relief for the majority of the movie but his over-the-top nature just left me wishing for him to be removed from scenes entirely. Another subplot revolves around Judd Hirsch's Julius Levinson character, and it simply another distraction to add more and more characters to the already bloated roster. From that list, who's the one character from the original movie who I haven't mentioned? Will Smith's Steven Hiller. The character is not just gone from the movie without a cameo, but he is shamefully killed off-screen, taking away all hopes for him to make a return in the inevitable third movie. 

However, since this is 20 years later, we do need some new actors and faces added to the cast, but there are far too many to keep track of. It doesn't help that most of them are unlikable as well. The one exception to this is Maika Munroe, who plays Patricia Whitmore, the daughter of Bill Pullman's character. Monroe is great in the movie and has some particularly great moments with her character's father. Everyone else, on the other hand: dull. Jessie Usher's Dylan (meant to be the son of Will Smith's original hero) is terribly written and incredibly boring. Liam Hemsworth's Jake is your generic, witty hero character. There's also the stereotypical Chinese pilot, the wacky sidekick struggling to talk to a girl, a pointless female scientist to work with Jeff Goldblum, and yet another irritating comic relief character. The worst offenders are the ones who are actually set up for some proper development. For example, take Deobia Oparei's African warlord. Initially set up to be an interesting character with an emotional backstroke relating to the aliens, any backstory established early on is forgotten about and never mentioned again.

Look, chances are that the biggest selling point on this movie for a lot of people was the massive set pieces and over-the-top action that has been showcased in the trailers and is a staple of director Roland Emmerich's works. However, despite Jeff Goldblum's character stating that the aliens "love to get the landmarks," you might be surprised that nothing quite matches the spectacle of the White House being destroyed in the original movie. The only thing that comes relatively close is the destruction of London early on, but even then disaster movie fans are destined to be disappointed by the lack of huge, city-crushing set pieces on show here. However, that's not to say that some of the action that is included in the movie is impressive nonetheless. Some of the dogfight sequences in particular using the jets that have been advanced with alien technology. It's not that the action of the movie isn't dumb fun, but it's strange that the action isn't as large-scale or world crushing, despite this movie's $165 million budget as opposed to the original's $75 million.

However, hands down the best part of the movie is the visual effects and spectacle provided throughout the runtime. These visuals are phenomenal and deserve to be commended. The shots of the moon base, and the action sequences (which involve far more green screen and alien weaponry this time round), are all fantastic and never break the audience's immersion. In fact, all of the technical aspects of the movie are on point, with the cinematography and sound design also being worthy of a mention. Most of Roland Emmerich's movies succeed in these departments, and it's good to see that he has managed to at least succeed in these aspects with "Resurgence."

I am a huge sci-fi fan, and the original Independence Day is one of the classic alien invasion movies of the 1990s. That's why it makes me very upset to have to say that "Independence Day: Resurgence" is a colossal disappointment and is not a good movie. Although there are some good performances scattered throughout the movie and some spectacular effects work, there is simply too much wrong here to forgive and give a passing score. A plot that makes absolutely no sense and repeats what we've seen before, an over-abundance of characters to handle with barely any of them being sufficiently developed, and not enough massive action sequences that were promised in the trailer. These are all problems present throughout "Resurgence." If you only go to see a movie for mindless action and don't want to think at all, then you might have some fun with this one. However, if you care about watching a movie with good characters and a logical story, give this one a miss.

Pros

• Impressive effects
• Some good performances

Cons

• Terrible characterisation
• Way too many characters for its own good
• Does nothing original
• Unforgivable logic errors
• One of the worst and most sequel-baiting endings in recent memory
• Surprising lack of large-scale set pieces

Rating: 3/10

Release Date: 23rd June, 2016

Starring Jeff Goldblum, Liam Hemsworth, Bill Pullman, Maika Munroe, Jessie Usher, Sela Ward, William Fichtner, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Judd Hirsch, Brent Spiner

"X-Men: Apocalypse" Review

It's hard to believe that the X-Men franchise kicked off 16 years ago with the original "X-Men." Since then, we've had sequels, reboots and spin-offs galore, all of which have had varying levels of critical success. Personally, I prefer the entries in the prequel series, with "First Class" and "Days of Future Past," to the original series, with the only spin-off living up to the standard of these movies being "Deadpool" this year. "X-Men: Apocalypse" is the next part of this series. Just as "First Class" was set in the 1960s, and "Days of Future Past" in the 70s, "Apocalypse" sees the X-Men is the 80s and they are faced with tackling an ancient being with seemingly unlimited power. Don't expect to see the team being part of any historical events this time round though. Besides some fashion choices, the only major signpost of the period is when the young X-Men go to see "Return of the Jedi" in the cinema. When discussing the movie afterwards, Jean Grey says that "at least we can all agree one thing: the third one is always the worst." However, what may have been intended as a jab at "X-Men: The Last Stand" unfortunately refers to this movie as well. Make no mistake, "X-Men: Apocalypse" isn't a bad movie, but it is faced with a number of problems which make it weaker than both of the other prequel movies.

As I just said, the plot of this movie revolves around the X-Men of the last few movies coming together, along with some younger versions of some mutants from the original movies, to take on a new threat in the form of Apocalypse, the world's first mutant. This would appear to be a credible threat but the plot strangely feels much smaller in scale to "Days of Future Past." In that movie, the problem and danger felt real after seeing the devastation brought by the Sentinels in the future. In this movie, we see very little of Apocalypse's powers which set him apart from other villains in the franchise. The plot of the movie is quite messy throughout, particularly at the beginning with lots of different scenes around the world being shown. Additionally, there is one particularly lengthy filler sequence in the middle of the movie set on a military base which seems to be in the movie for little reason other than to implement a certain cameo unfortunately spoiled by the final trailer into the movie. Thankfully, these scenes are well-written and very well acted nonetheless.

As I just said, the actors in the movie all do a fantastic job, and their characters are very well developed over the course of the movie. There are a few characters in the movie who do not go through much of an arc, such as Nightcrawler, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, who is mainly in the movie to provide some silly comic relief at certain points. Additionally, other characters feel completely pointless and inconsequential, like Havoc (played by Lucas Till), who is only there to introduce Cyclops into the plot, and Moira McTaggert (played by Rose Byrne), returning from First Class and only present here to act as a love interest for Professor X. The best returning characters are Hank McCoy/ Beast (played by Nicholas Hoult), Mystique (played by Jennifer Lawrence), although these two characters go through the same tired will they/won't they love story from the last two movies, and the aforementioned Professor, who is once again played brilliantly by James McAvoy. The new cast members generally fare well. Besides Nightcrawler, we also see young versions of Cyclops and Jean Grey, played by Tye Sheridan and Sophie Turner respectively. We once again see these two characters go through the love story they were a part of in the original movies. Although this is a tired subplot, thankfully not too much time is spent on it, and the two characters are better developed separately, with Sheridan delivering an emotional performance as the character first discovers his abilities, while Turner does an excellent job of showing Jean to be just as tortured and hurt as she is in the comics.

The villains of the movies, on the other hand, do not fare quite as well as the heroes. Apocalypse (or En Sabah Nur) is played very well by Oscar Isaac, who manages to make the character just as intimidating as he is in the comics. The same cannot be said for his power level, as he lacks a number of powers possessed by his comic book counterpart, which does not make his appear to be the god who stands far above these other mutants. And what is going on with his voice? I have no problem with an ancient mutant sounding otherworldly, but is it too much to ask for some consistency. Isaac goes from quiet whispering to a tuned voice to a strange English accent to shouting as loud as he can. The better villain of the movie is Magneto, played once again by Michael Fassbender. The character is much more motivated than any other character in the movie, and Fasssbender delivers a powerful, emotional performance, particularly in some of the movie's earlier sequences in Poland. However, if you are a comic book fan going to this movie excited to see Apocalypse's Four Horsemen, you are going to be mortified. Besides Magneto, Apocalypse's other followers (Storm, Psylocke, and Angel) are terribly developed and are ultimately little more than an afterthought. Storm is literally the first person Apocalypse picks off the street, Angel has a good fight sequence and transformation early on before practically never speaking again, and the only thing Psylocke's got going for her is that her costume is pretty much an exact replica from the comics. Which doesn't even make sense when the other Horsemen have got tactical armour.

Excellent action has always been a staple of the X-Men franchise, and thankfully that is continued over into this movie. Many of the early sequences presented here are fantastic, particularly the ultra-violent military base scene featuring that certain cameo I mentioned before and the Quicksilver sequence, which once again steals the show. However, the finale is an issue that has to be addressed. With so many different characters involved and fighting, many characters have very little to do, and the scene feels extremely long and boring. One fight in particular feels like a retread of the same fight from much earlier in the movie. It's unfortunate that this sequence feels so bloated, especially when we've seen from other X-Men movies that Bryan Singer can do much better in his finales.

One of the aspects of the movie that had to be spot on was the visual effects, and this is an area where the filmmakers have succeeded. With so many mutant powers in play throughout the movie, it is incredible that almost nothing in the movie looks fake at any point. The only scenes which could raise some eyebrows are during the finale, particularly with regards Magneto and a couple of fights involving Beast. However, the section of the movie where the visuals will cause jaws to drop is the aforementioned Quicksilver scene once again. The slow motion effects on display are phenomenal and also shows off the excellent cinematography as the camera accurately follows Quicksilver's face and the environment around him while keeping every bit of detail in the scene clear. In fact, every technical aspect of the movie is on point and deserves to be commended.

Ultimately, "X-Men: Apocalypse" is a mixed bag. There's plenty of good filmmaking on show here, with great performances from all of the cast members and spectacular action and visual effects. However, all of this is countered by the weaknesses of he villains and a severe lack of development, while the finale (and quite a few other scenes for that matter) is a messy affair. If you are going to see this movie for a very well-written story with no major plot holes, then you may be disappointed. However, if you are more forgiving of these errors, and are able to enjoy some great action, then you'll be able to have a good time watching this movie. Let's just hope the next movie keeps this action, but improves on the writing and direction. Also, since the next movie is supposedly set in the 1990s, let's hope for the return of the incredible theme song from the old cartoon.

Pros

• Performances around the board (especially Fassbender)
• The Quicksilver sequence
• Visual effects
• Cinematography and editing

Cons

• Development of the Horsemen (besides Magneto)
• Bloated finale
• What is going on with Apocalypse's voice?

Rating: 7/10

Release Date: 29th April, 2016

Starring James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Oscar Isaac, Nicholas Hoult,  Rose Byrne, Tye Sheridan, Sophie Turner, Evan Peters, Alexandra Shipp, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Olivia Munn, Ben Hardy, Josh Helman, and Hugh Jackman